Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 13 Oct 2019, at 7:25, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> The Abstract ans Section 1 say: "This is a non-standard proprietary
>> extension." I understand that this is not a standards track document, 
>> so
>> the "non-standard" part makes sense.  However, what is the point of
>> publishing a "proprietary" extension as an RFC.  I would hope that
>> interoperable implementations is the goal of publication.
>
> I’m afraid this addition is my fault.  Perhaps “proprietary” is 
> the wrong
> word here: The point is that this is documenting an extension 
> developed by
> one registry and not in use by others, with the idea that if others 
> want to
> use it they can follow this to interoperable.  It’s rather like when 
> we
> documented Apple Bonjour as Informational.
>
> Better word?

Why have any word other than "non-standard"? It is *not* proprietary in 
that multiple vendors implement it and there appears to be no licensing 
requirement from the authors.

--Paul Hoffman